When it comes to the topic of prosecuting former, twice-impeached Donald Trump, some asshole with a blog noted:
Our political discourse is admitting that, if the left, construed broadly loses, then they might protest and do non-violent things, but if the right loses, they will engage in political violence, which is to say terrorism….
This is such a horrifying and critical subtext, yet The Discourse doesn’t mention it explicitly: much of the Republican Party is willing to use violence to gain political power.
Well, more mainstream voices are beginning to figure this out (boldface mine):
The common thread among the skeptical arguments—setting aside the sycophantic defenses of Trump—is worry about provoking the former president’s masses of fans, as the journalist Jonathan Katz notes.
This argument for caution has some conceptual flaws. Primarily, it gives weight to the speculative danger of backlash to accountability, while downplaying the already concrete harms of allowing Trump to go untrammeled. Beyond that, it grants undue deference to the small faction of Trump fans who might react violently—though as the January 6 insurrection showed, the fears of violence are reasonable. But this amounts to granting a heckler’s veto to extremists, when majorities of the public consistently support greater scrutiny of Trump.
I still think too many in exalted positions in The Discourse fail to understand how corrosive not prosecuting Trump would be. While people bandy about phrases like ‘above the rule of law’, it has been clear for a long time that this phrase is insufficient: there is a large group of people with impunity from the consequences of their actions. There is another backlash brewing, and it’s not the one found in Midwestern diners. It can be bleed off or allowed to explode–and given the reaction to professional Democrats tepidly standing up for themselves, I don’t think our political betters realize what’s lurking out there.